The clinching of a final and comprehensive nuclear agreement between the major powers and Iran is no longer a surprise, yet that did not lessen the feeling of shock in the “Israeli” sphere. “Israeli” officials have varying positions and assessments [towards this issue] – whether in the government or opposition – but they were unanimous that Iran has triumphed in this battle, while “Israel” was the biggest loser, and that “this agreement poses a threat to the security of “Israel””.

Against the backdrop of “Israeli” efforts that were based on the fact that the Iranian nuclear deal will be signed one way or another, the “Israeli” arena had split between those who hold that Iran has turned into a nuclear, great power, and those who described the agreement as a historic mistake. However, “Israeli” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has already accused the major powers of capitulating before Iran and its declared red lines, chose to direct the accusation that “there are those who want a deal with Iran at any price”.

In an attempt by “Israel” to contain the regional and strategic consequences of this agreement, it entered the post-agreement stage even before the deal’s announcement, whether on the political, media, or security levels. “Israel” is now only left with Congress as the last remaining arena of the confrontation, with the hope that [efforts in this arena] will contribute to the prevention of the agreement being approved.

It was not enough for “Israel” that the deal in its current form cements the fact that Iran has obtained international recognition and legitimacy with its transformation into a nuclear state. Rather, what was also strongly reflected in the “Israeli” arena in general, and by Netanyahu in particular, is that at a time when negotiations were taking place on the eve of the announcement of the agreement, the Iranian people, along with their officials, were chanting their [political] stances and slogans: “Death to America” and “Death to “Israel””.

As a result, the head of the “Israeli” government decided to highlight this point, and after addressing it before the government, he went back and discussed the implications of the timing of this issue during a session of the ‘Likud’ bloc. He held that Iran, which continuously repeats these slogans, is being negotiated with by great powers in Vienna, and is being offered concessions. On this level, Netanyahu accused these states, particularly the United States with the leadership of Barack Obama, of wanting an agreement with Iran “at any cost”.

In an attempt by Netanyahu to shirk from his strategy that failed to achieve the bare minimum that the “Israelis” hoped to achieve in confrontation with Iran, he said that “In any case, we did not pledge to avoid or prevent a deal” with Iran, ignoring the conditions and red lines that he had drawn for these negotiations, and did not intend but to put Tehran before two options: either surrender, or drop any attempt to reach an agreement.

Thereafter, it appeared that Netanyahu realized that the first scenario is not consistent with regional and international equations, or with the Iranian determination. Obama recognized this [determination] himself, by stressing that no alternative options can effectively solve this problem apart from reaching an agreement that accepts [Iran’s] transformation into a nuclear state.

In light of this, there is no meaning to the conditions set by Netanyahu other than an attempt to cut the road to any agreement, and thus push things towards military confrontation. The government had stipulated the following conditions for an agreement with Iran: the removal of all enriched uranium material from the [Islamic] Republic, no enrichment is to be carried out on Iranian territory, the dismantling of nuclear facilities, and the destruction of centrifuge equipment, and disallowing [Iran] from further continuing [its nuclear program].

Therefore, Netanyahu claimed that “Israel” is “committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons”, while ignoring also that it also committed itself to preventing [Iran from] possessing the ability to produce nuclear weapons, which it has now acquired, while keeping in mind that the official [political] and religious stance in Iran absolutely rejects nuclear weapons production.

However, Netanyahu’s words came as a prelude to claiming a fake achievement by saying: “if not for our efforts in the past, Iran would been armed with nuclear weapons a long time ago”. With this, he was trying to cover up the failure of his strategy that was aimed at preventing the progress of the Iranian nuclear program, leading to the positioning of the [Islamic] Republic as a nuclear state. This is especially the case since Netanyahu’s stances on this issue were out in the open and strongly present in [the minds] of the Israeli public.

But what has happened has happened, Netanyahu no longer has anything to say other than repeat his commitment to “preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons more than ever before”, calling on “all who deem “Israel’s” security as something dear to them, to stand behind this pledge”. However, this pledge indicates the lowering of the “Israeli” ceiling, because the “Israeli” prime minister does not have ANY OPTION but to reduce the ceiling [of his demands], down to a pledge to prevent Iran from breaching the agreement and moving towards the production of nuclear weapons – which is in any case fundamentally inconsistent with official Iranian policy.

On the other hand, it is one of the fundamentals of “Israeli” strategy, which has been implemented by Tel Aviv throughout its history, to work to prevent any hostile states from acquiring nuclear and unconventional capabilities. To achieve this end, it launched attacks, carried out sabotage operations and assassinations in a number of Arab states throughout past decades.

In the same context, the official in charge of the nuclear file in the “Israeli” government, Yuval Steinitz, was not vague in his words when he confirmed in an exclusive interview with the Hebrew ‘Walla’ website, that Iran stuck to its red lines, while the great powers backtracked from what they had previously announced, and they did not adopt “Israeli” demands. Steinitz explained that “Israel” “asked for an agreement that includes dismantlement and destruction”, in reference to the destruction and dismantlement of centrifuges and nuclear facilities.

However, what occurred according to Steinitz, is that the “great powers came and said that this cannot happen”, and they put forward an alternative to the “Israeli” demand, which is an “agreement involving monitoring and freezing”. Keeping in mind that “according to what we see, the freeze will not be absolute, and that they will continue the development of their nuclear program”, while Steinitz added that “the careful and unprecedented monitoring that Obama talked about has turned into a joke and a farce”.

Steinitz also warned that the “monitoring formula in its current form is like acupuncture for the dead”, while adding that the agreement with Iran allows it to produce nuclear weapons, and stressing that “this agreement will transform Iran into a legitimate nuclear state”. In addition, he pointed out that this “means giving up security in the world for the sake of a political achievement that till now is shrouded with uncertainty”.

As for the next Israeli steps, Steinitz claimed that there is opposition to the agreement in the United States, adding that “Israel” would try to explain to Congress, in a united and frank manner, to try to convince it that this is a bad agreement. Furthermore, he talked about efforts within the United States on this issue, carried out by journalists, commentators, and experts who have begun to criticize the agreement. Steinitz vowed that “we know how to influence American public opinion and the media, and I am convinced that there exist serious doubts regarding this agreement”.

In this context, Israeli reports talked about “Israel” receiving two large delegations of about 100 US lawmakers from the Senate and House of Representatives next month, representing the Democrats and conservatives. Netanyahu is expected to meet with all legislators to persuade them to oppose the agreement. Other reports also said that Netanyahu intends to go to the United States next September in order to incite members of Congress to oppose the nuclear deal.

In a related development, the “Israeli” security minister, Moshe Ya’alon, warned that major powers committed a historic mistake signing a bad agreement with Iran, offering unprecedented concessions to a regime that “spreads terrorism and threatens the world with war”. Ya’alon said before the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee of the Knesset that the nuclear deal with Iran “will affect more than anything else our political and security status, because the talk is related to a bad deal that would allow Iran to be a nuclear state”.

However, he added that following this agreement there will be “repercussions on other states that view in this situation a threat to them, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey”. Ya’alon also stressed on the fact that this agreement “will not lead to the closure of one nuclear facility or the destruction of a single centrifuge device”. He also warned of the coming future for Israel, stressing that it will continue to prepare in order “to defend ourselves by ourselves”. Finally, he viewed the agreement as a “whitewashing of the image of Iran, which violated Security Council resolutions”.

Furthermore, the head of the ‘Jewish Home’ party Naftali Bennett, and in light of the agreement being reached with Iran, said that a “great terrorist state was born”, describing the current phase as “critical days for the state of “Israel” and the entire world”. Bennett pointed out that most of what is involved in this agreement is that “a state that declares that its goal is the elimination of “Israel”, has acquired international legitimacy to be a great, nuclear power”.

As for the head of the “Israeli” opposition, Isaac Herzog said that “there is something clear, and that is that this agreement will accelerate the regional arms race, and could lead to a deterioration of the security situation in the region, and reflect negatively on the security interests of “Israel”. Secondly, this agreement will give legitimacy for the transformation of Iran into a nuclear state in the foreseeable future”.

Furthermore, the head of the Yesh Atid opposition party Yair Lapid, pointed out that the policy of the Netanyahu regarding the Iranian issue failed miserably, calling on him to resign. Lapid also drew attention to the fact that Netanyahu continuously pledged for years to prevent an agreement from taking place, and that if an agreement was signed, then “he is responsible”.

As for the “Israeli” Channel 2, it also revealed that Netanyahu and Steinitz had held telephone calls with Britain, France, Germany, and perhaps Russia, as last-minute attempts to influence the terms of the agreement. There is fear of a decline in the ability of Israel to influence the US at this stage. It appears that the Iranians got everything they wanted, and that only US Congress can prevent the agreement now.

The Sayyid is a network of interested people in
Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei’s personality and
thoughts.
The Sayyid network works as a source for people
generated materials regarding ideas and personality
of Ayatollah Khamenei.
The Sayyid network provides general understanding
of Ayatollah Khamenei’s intellectual contributions on
the socio-political, religious, economical, and cultural
issues.